[Bug inline-asm/54450] Extended asm in global scope
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54450
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |INVALID
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #7)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> > > Probably dup of http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41045
> >
> > Agreed, closing as a duplicate of it
> >
> > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 41045 ***
>
> Really?
>
> What the OP wants is
>
> >> void *ptr;
> >>
> >> __asm__ ("my_function:\n\t"
> >>"jmp *%0\n\t" : : "r"(ptr));
>
> Constraint "r" cannot work at toplevel, hence this PR is invalid.
>
> What PR41045 is about is top-level asm arguments that are compiler-time
> constants (constraint "n") and maybe also symbols (constraints "i" and "s").
>
> So the initial request is only valid if the address of ptr was used (and
> is CONST_INT, CONST or SYMBOL_REF etc.):
>
> void *ptr;
>
> __asm__ ("my_function:\n\t"
> "jmp ??? %0" : : "i" ());
Oh OK, changing to INVALID then.
[Bug inline-asm/54450] Extended asm in global scope
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54450
--- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #6)
> (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> > Probably dup of http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41045
>
> Agreed, closing as a duplicate of it
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 41045 ***
Really?
What the OP wants is
>> void *ptr;
>>
>> __asm__ ("my_function:\n\t"
>>"jmp *%0\n\t" : : "r"(ptr));
Constraint "r" cannot work at toplevel, hence this PR is invalid.
What PR41045 is about is top-level asm arguments that are compiler-time
constants (constraint "n") and maybe also symbols (constraints "i" and "s").
So the initial request is only valid if the address of ptr was used (and
is CONST_INT, CONST or SYMBOL_REF etc.):
void *ptr;
__asm__ ("my_function:\n\t"
"jmp ??? %0" : : "i" ());
[Bug inline-asm/54450] Extended asm in global scope
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54450 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill ||a/show_bug.cgi?id=25967 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE --- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to jnz from comment #1) > I'd be happy to use __attribute__((naked)) but it's not supported on x86 for > some reason. That's bug 25967 (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2) > Probably dup of http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41045 Agreed, closing as a duplicate of it *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 41045 ***
[Bug inline-asm/54450] Extended asm in global scope
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54450 Sergey Zolotarev just.serejko at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86 Host||x86 --- Comment #1 from Sergey Zolotarev just.serejko at gmail dot com 2012-09-01 10:10:25 UTC --- I'd be happy to use __attribute__((naked)) but it's not supported on x86 for some reason.
[Bug inline-asm/54450] Extended asm in global scope
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54450 Marek Polacek polacek at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||polacek at redhat dot com --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek polacek at redhat dot com 2012-09-01 10:59:21 UTC --- Probably dup of http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41045
[Bug inline-asm/54450] Extended asm in global scope
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54450 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek polacek at redhat dot com 2012-09-01 11:10:10 UTC --- Also, __attribute__((naked)) for x86 will never be implemented.
[Bug inline-asm/54450] Extended asm in global scope
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54450 --- Comment #4 from Sergey Zolotarev just.serejko at gmail dot com 2012-09-01 12:43:52 UTC --- Also, __attribute__((naked)) for x86 will never be implemented. May I ask why?
[Bug inline-asm/54450] Extended asm in global scope
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54450 --- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek polacek at redhat dot com 2012-09-01 13:15:46 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) May I ask why? See e.g. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-02/msg00943.html
